Life Internet Ban For Pirates

American internet users could be banned from the internet for life if they subscribe to the ISP Mediacom and persistently break copyright law.
A controversial six-strikes anti-piracy scheme will start in the US this year, but Mediacom has opted for its own stricter measures with a maximum of three strikes.
How will their policy work? When a user receives their first DMCA notice (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), they will receive a letter highlighting the violation to act as a warning.
The second notice will trigger an account suspension, which can only be reinstated when the user completes paperwork.
The third and final struck will see the user banned for life. This contrasts with the industry-wide six-strike rule, which will still punish persistent violators but never enforce a life ban.
"Given the importance of connectivity these days, it's extremely unfortunate that any ISP would terminate after three DMCA notices", the Electronic Frontier Foundation told TorentFreak. "DMCA notices are merely accusations they are not proof of wrongdoing, and ISPs should not treat them as such".
Another problem with any of the proposed rules is that the owner of an internet connection might not be the person committing piracy. A teenager might be using their parent's connection, or a criminal neighbor might exploit the lack of security on a nearby wifi connection. Both situations could impact the subscriber's ability to run a business from home, as one example.
Last year the United Nations declared that internet access is a human right. It could be interesting to see how this plays into any future court cases debating a life ban, though most pirates will probably stop any illegal activity after a warning or two.
What do you think? Will the threat of a lifelong ban stop you from pirating music, or would you just switch providers and ditch Mediacom? Let us know in the comments.

Really don't think the threat of a life long ban will do anything but make those who don't care about stealing music laugh. How would they ever truly enforce that? Like the article said, what if it's some kid using their parents internet? I don't think it'll work nor ever happen.
The only way to deter piracy is to tap into the listeners morals and have them convince themselves its wrong and hurting the musicians they like in the first place. The average joe doesn't understand what it takes to be a musician and the kind of work and care put into making an album. If they are educated about this process they hopefully would start to feel bad about ripping off artists. It's a classic case of, "Well, why do I care?"

ya know i actually saw a short blurb in a 2008 rolling stone magazine that said something along the lines that ISP's should open some sort of service, make people pay 5 or 10 dollars a month, and they can torrent their brains out completely legally, and the money would be split between isp's labels, artists, etc. a little extreme, but it kind of makes sense. people are massively torrenting anyway, if they can get a couple bucks a month and make a legal service, i think they could make a pretty hefty chunk back of the money they're losing due to piracy. i was kind of shocked this idea was thought of 2008 and nobody has even mentioned anything like it.

Definitely, but I assume the reason streaming services arose is continuity. Imagine the amount of music that could potentially be downloaded in a month: thousands of gigs of music, right? So, pay for one month, get more than a lifetime of music, cancel your subscription.
You could have theoretically paid $10 for somewhere around 5 years worth of music.
The only incentive to maintain or reinstate the subscription would be to get new music, but one could just as easily re-torrent once or twice a year to update their library.

This is very true. It likely wouldn't be an issue except for A) Spotify's library is still very limited and B) unlimited data plans for smartphones are slowly going away.
Downloading will likely always remain supreme as long as those two issues remain unresolved.

Well, (A) is just a matter of the site becoming more popular and successful I think, and (B) comes down to a data infrastructure overhaul. There's already not enough bandwidth for the next generation of data expansion, that's why unlimited plans are going out the window. Extra Credits s4 ep15 on the penny arcade gives a good presentation of the issue, if anyone is at all interested.

I actually really like this idea. I dislike Spotify because the library is limited, but if you could pay a few bucks a month to download from anywhere you'd like, I'd be completely okay with that.
There is, however, the issue of making sure independent bands/labels get a cut too, which the RIAA will do nothing to enforce. There needs to be an easy process for bands and labels to register with the ISPs to get a share of the profits.

Don't forget film companies, actors, etc etc.
$5-10 bucks a month wouldn't even come close to covering it though. People who download music and movies don't usually just download 2-3 a month, and even still.. 3 new release DVDs maybe cost $50-70

That's a very dim view of things, to be honest, and one that I disagree with.
I honestly believe that many who pirate now would gladly to subscribe to such a scheme.
The issues of making sure artists get their cut, and the fee originally proposed is far too small, to be honest.

When cassette recorders came out the record companies said it was the end of the music industry, claimed giant losses and did all the nonsense they are doing now. Eventually they got a cut of the blank media profits and were happy. I would definitely not be surprised if they were now after a cut of ISP profits.

Couldn't someone just get another ISP?? And even if Mediacom was super-savvy and tracked the MAC Address, all you have to do is buy another computer... I think it's an interesting statement they are trying to make, but ultimately, the point is moot, there are too many ways around it.

So in other words you will be banned from using any Mediacom owned Internet Service Providers, something tells me that they aren't the only ones providing access in the USA. The only thing this will do is destroy their sales of new connections with a asinine rule like that you will never achieve new customers.

Because they are trying to cover imaginary losses of other people. if they only catch 1/25000 people then they break even, but this itself is illegal as with no legitimate losses they can't be awarded any amount lol
Speculative losses are not actual losses, so i'm surprised any court would hear them let alone award them that much lol (Probably a lot of behind the scenes work)

Ahh... only in America would the 'government' focus so much on trying to take money away from artists by giving them less exposure and keeping the piracy ban money for themselves... The US government is hypocrisy at the highest level.

I've never found much credibility in that reasoning. How many people torrent something, like it, and then say, "Ok, I'm going to go out and actually pay for this product I already have full access to for free"?
There are no doubt people who do do that, but human nature says the majority illegally download because they'd rather not pay for something as long as it's easily gotten away with.

So, lets say, you were born in the late 90's and you're into rock music, you're just going to buy every ****ing album from every ****ing rockband that's famous? Good luck with that.
I'd rather buy a t-shirt or patch for my jacket (or go see them live) to support and promote the band, than buy an album I can already listen to.

I buy 90% of music I end up enjoying. The other 10% is either stuff have yet to get to or maybe a band that doesn't have available merch and isn't on tour yet in my area. For my favorite bands I have spent a lot of money.
For the music I've streamed/downloaded/any method that doesn't give profits that I haven't paid for I wouldn't have even if I had heard it legally. There is legitimacy to the "try before buy" option.

This is a very weak argument. Nowadays almost all albums stream online before physical album release. Anyone wanting to "sample" the album can do that and then buy. This is merely an excuse for pirating.

So meeting those criteria make it ok to steal others' work? By that logic, it should be ok for you to walk into the grocery store and take whatever you want as long as you work 40 hours a week and don't make a lot.

How will it help? If anything it will HURT the music industry. Most of the up-and-coming bands get publicity and get their name spread around through "illegal downloads". The more they fight pirating, the more they hurt the music industry. Before you know it all we'll have is the washed up, old bands that have been around for 30+ years.

They can advertise through comercials on tv adds. *bands are losing alot of money not being able to sell as much as there cd's because people pirate and get there albums for free. There are other ways to get publicity for bands, heck advertise through facebook, most bands have a myspace page where people can here the music to. also you callign bands from liek 30 years ago washed up? well let me say those classic rock and 80's bands ahve a lot more talent then most of the music today. THEY PUT FORTH ALOT MORE WORK. also just think woudl you want to put forth all that work and waste money making albums jsut so people can pirate em and get em for free? I even read on another article that really the only way bands are makign good money is from touring.

Dude.. Bands don't get any money from CD's.. The only way to truly support a band is to see them live and/or buy they're merch.. Advertisement cost.. If pirating was illegal how do the bands get fans? Thats just the way it is.. Thats how bands are discovered.

I used to download music, just to test it out or to listen on my iPod if I couldn't actually buy it(I like a lot of early '80s speed/power metal, and...well, pretty hard to get most of that stuff in when it's been out of print for 20-odd years, and the small labels that take up some bands charge $30 for a demo or a badly-recorded EP without even remastering the thing...), but my friend actually got a call from Rogers saying they were pressing charges for "illegal distribution" about a week ago because he'd left his uTorrent open for a day to download something(!).
Needless to say, looks like I'm going to be paying out the arse and waiting 3 weeks every time I want something that's not on a major label...eh, I guess we deserve it!

How exactly do you ban somebody from the Internet? It's a good idea but its unrealistic. It's like gun and drug control, just because the government says you can't have certain guns and drugs doesn't stop that many people from buying an AK and some heroin. Unless they come up with some kind of enforcement this isn't going to do much.

It's only "stealing" when it comes from the RIAA and big time crybabies like Yngwie, KISS, Metallica, etc. Talk to any band that is actually trying to make it in the music business and 99% of the time they will encourage people to download their music. Its sad that the millionaires are the only ones who have a problem with "pirating".

Agreed, but also bands with their own labels are hurting too and are speaking up. Like 10 Years, they lashed out on Facebook because of piraters stealing their album and the bass player even created an account on PB and called out the people there. It was actually kinda funny watching all these people trying to justify why they stole the album to the guy they stole it from.

So if I go to the library, download a few things, that library will get banned from using the internet and therefore will have to close because it uses the internet for the databases of books it has and who has the ones who are checked out?

The only reason there's such a issue about pirating is because massive music companies, who have nothing to do with the creation of the music except buying the rights to legally own it and charge whatever they want for other people to access it in the name of pure profiteering, are causing a big stink because they're seeing a slump in profit. They're not losing money no, but heaven forbid, they're not making as much as they were before! **** these suits, pirate your music, love the bands you find, share them with your friends and scream as loud as you can when you see them live, that's how you support artists. With any luck we might topple this industry which exists purely for profit, and from the ashes a fairer, more artist-controlled and supportive industry will rise in it's place

I'm pretty sure Copyright law just says you can't alter, distribute, or claim someone's music to be your own. But it's perfectly legal to download it.
Basically if you don't seed you don't break the law.

The music industry has screwed itself. How many people really buy a Cd any longer. If the purchase it they download it from some site. So there is no middle man, no packaging, no shipping,none of the overhead of the old record stores but yet the price has not been reduced to take all of this into affect. Okay there a few that go out and buy a cd but maybe its time to stop and that would cut cost further no need to manufacture cd's. The same goes for Movies. Greed has killed the music industry. How many people can afford to go to a concert these days? I am not condoning the act of piracy but the industry just isn't forward thinking. Their bottom line is dropping because of their greed. I miss the days of buying a new album...the 12" vinyl version. The smell when you open it. The art work of the jacket. The liner notes, the credits, The occasional poster, lyrics. Back then you got something that went with the music. They need to replace all this in a digital format

Mediacom was my ISP in college at the University of Missouri. Being banned from the internet isn't a whole lot different than using their service. In the entire US, there are only 3 ISP's with a lower satisfaction rating than them.

Everyone's talking about music but I think the biggest victim of pirating is software. I have a friend who torrents pretty much all of his programs, from Cubase to Skyrim.
Bands can at least get support through merch/shows but what about software companies? I could be wrong but I think they're hurt the worst.

No one seems willing to differentiate between the uploader and the downloader. The downloader is a thief who deserves the punishment due most petite larcenists whilst the uploader deserves to pay a separate higher fee which still should only cost somewhere near the cost of the product and some minor court fees which still should only be in the hundreds

I made that much loved pedophile comparison earlier but on a more serious comment I'd go as far to say this is borderline cruel punishment. I won't entirely object to punishments for piracy because I still believe it is a form of theft, but banning people from the internet is more than a simple punishment. With the digital age having access to the internet in modernized society is almost essential. Almost all features are moving online and I find it ridiculous that record labels would cause someone to be socially behind for the rest of their life for downloading some audio files.

This doesn't even begin to address downloading onto one's phone via a cellular connection. If you're willing to pay the price for the data stream, you can still download essentially everything you want.
What service providers are under the Mediacom arm?

I can handle no longer pirating games, or movies, or software. I've paid for 98% of what I have anyway. But we'll have a problem once I can't pirate comic books anymore. Millionaires would struggle to pay for all of the comic books I read.

Ill go back to buying cds when I get my local record store back and they start makimg decent portable cd players again! Wait neither of these things are never going to happen so till then go **** y so the RIAA can go **** itself.

Music shouldn't be an "industry", commercialising an art form is just a sick joke, musicians are still able to make a comfortable living and they should learn to change with the times. I've seen so many artists making their music available for free and finding new ways to actually make purchasing the album worthwhile. I don't understand why people feel so obligated to make these people millionaires, true artists don't do what they do for the money, as it is and has been only very few of them ever reach those heights anyway, so get over it and stop defending them.

Personally I think the government should worry about other things like bringing every soldier home and letting other countries deal with their own shit, instead of downloading music and trying to take our guns.

Here is a thing for the people who wants to stop this downloading. I'm a developer and a computer-freak! I'm so sure that there is a lot of persons like me! who cannon't be traced by an IP Address! Because my IP is from United Kingdom but It's say from Turkey in some famous programs like Camfrog But Actually I'm not from either the countries below! So How the **** will stop it ? well Never.! The Law is easy to break! Because humans cannot be living under rules How ? It's simple it's like your wife! when she tells you I need you home today I know it's your friends night But for sure you'll duch your wife and go out with your friends to have a beer!